Double replacement cation neutralization of high alkalinity waste materials

ABSTRACT

A method of treating hydroxide alkaline waste and by-products to render the material neutralized or reduced in pH from near 14 to a minimum lower limit of about 5.3 based on aluminum poly cation salts, rendering the waste or by-product stream suitable for ultimate disposal or reuse. The method comprises contacting together a mixture of moderate to high alkaline waste or by-product material with a pH in the range of 7.5-14, with sufficient water added or found within the alkaline material, with one or more poly cationic salts in the dry form taken from a group of salts containing tri-valent aluminum, tri-valent iron, di-valent calcium, di-valent magnesium, di-valent manganese, di-valent zinc, or any polyvalent cationic salt that is soluble in water to a minimum extent of 0.5 grams per 100 milliliters of water at near 0° Centigrade and 2 grams per 100 milliliters of water at near 100° Centigrade, in such a way to cause these materials to interact in a double replacement reaction to form a soluble salt reaction by-product and an insoluble hydroxide precipitate with water solubility characteristics, between 0° Centigrade and 100° Centigrade, equal to or exceeding that of CaS04*2H2O (gypsum) or approximately 0.20 grams per 100 milliliters of water. The added salts) may be dry or made up of a brine or dilute salt solution of the chosen salt or salts from the set of poly cation salts suitable to reduce hydroxide alkalinity in waste and by-product materials causing the pH to drop immediately upon thorough mixing of the poly cation salts and the waste/product materials, resulting in a treated waste/by-product stream/that is suitable for ultimate disposal or re-use.

TECHNICAL FIELD

This invention is involved with the treatment of waste and by product materials to render them more suitable for disposal or reuse by partially or significantly reducing the material's pH. Specifically, this invention relates to the treatment of moderate to highly hydroxide alkalinity bearing wastes and by-products.

BACKGROUND ART

There appears to be no patented art in the field of waste alkalinity reduction using inorganic salts; most if not all current technology regarding high alkalinity reduction is done through the long standing method of using mineral acid. The invention shown below is the only current technology found in our patent search, but it does not utilize any of the technology contained in this new application.

U.S. Pat. No. 4,913,835 Mandel, et al. Apr. 3, 1990 Abstract of U.S. Pat. No. 4,913,835

This invention relates to novel compositions and methods for neutralization and solidification of hazardous alkali spills. A dry particulate composition containing an organic neutralizing acid and, materials having varying adsorption rates may be used to neutralize alkaline spills, and solidify the spills to render them harmless. These compositions may be applied to the spills by fire-extinguisher-like delivery devices which spread the compositions on the spills from a relatively safe distance without splattering the hazardous materials.

DETAILED DESCRIPTION OF PREFERRED EMBODIMENTS OF U.S. Pat No. 4,913,835

The compositions of this invention preferably contain between about 45% and about 80% by weight of organic neutralizing acid in a dry particulate form such as citric acid, fumaric acid, tartaric acid or benzoic acid, between about 5% to about 45% by weight of a highly absorptive clay such as attapulgite, perlite, fullers earth or Minugel.RTM. and the like, optionally between about 10% to about 45% by weight of less absorptive clay, such as attapulgus clay and the like and between about 0.5% and about 10% by weight of a water soluble weak acid salt such as sodium dihydrogen phosphate, magnesium stearate, tricalcium phosphate, aluminum octoate, sodium stearate, monosodium salt of dimethyl naphthalene sulfonate, sodium polyacrylate, and the like.

U.S. Pat. No. 5,246,596, N. K. Murray, P. N. Baldwin, Jr. Sep. 21, 1993: Abstract of U.S. Pat. No. 5,246,596

Disclosed is a method for processing waste to render it fit for ultimate disposal. The method comprises first contacting together in a reaction mixture the waste stream, an ammonia source capable of evolving ammonia for treating the waste, Ca(OH).sub.2, pozzolanic chemicals SiO.sub.2, Fe.sub.2 O.sub.3, and Al.sub.2 O.sub.3, and at least one pozzolanic accelerator selected from the group consisting of anionic metal silicates, anionic carbon compounds, anionic boron compounds (borate family), anionic phosphorous compounds (phosphate family), and gelling enhancers, in a manner suit-able to cause pozzolanic stabilization reactions to occur thereby increasing the solids percentage of the reaction mixture. Next, the reaction mixture is allowed to reach a target temperature of at least about 90.degree. C., to reach a pH of at least about 11.5, and to evolve ammonia gas, thereby forming a heated mixture. Finally, the exposed surface area to mass ratio of the solids in the heated mixture is increased in a manner suitable to release the evolved ammonia gas, thereby neutralizing a substantial portion of the pathogens present in the waste stream and forming a treated waste stream that is suitable for ultimate disposal.

DISCLOSURE OF THE NEW INVENTION

Neutralization of Alkaline Wastes or By-Products:

This invention is about the neutralization of high through low level alkalinity with pH values in the range of 14-7.5 found in waste and by-product liquids, slurries, sludges and high solids systems that are capable of being water diluted. This neutralization is completed through the use of low cost, low to non toxic, environmentally friendly polyvalent cation salts. The resulting treated pH values can be anywhere from about 13.9 to approximately 5.3. These salts may be introduced in the dry form or in a variety of brine concentrations for maximum treatment efficiency. The salt addition may be of one active salt or it may be of a blend of salts some of which may be inactive single valent salts like potassium and sodium chloride. The active ingredient salts are based on polyvalent cations that are soluble in water to at least an extent of 0.5 gram in 100 grams of water at 0 degrees Centigrade or 1 gram per 100 milliliters (mis) of distilled water at 100 degrees Centigrade. Preferable solubilities would be in excess of 15 grams per 100 mls of distilled water at 20 degrees Centigrade. The reaction of these salts are first order and will happen at once when fully mixed into the waste or by-product. When the salt formula is added dry, the reaction is seen in less than 5 minutes or when complete mixing and dissolution occurs. Heavier and thicker solid slurries will cause a brief delay in full mixing and dissolution but in all studied cases, the reduction of the pH of the material to approximately it's final pH is typically less than 15 minutes. The examples of suitable polyvalent salts, based on the typical commercial quantity cost of each salt, its ready availability and overall effectiveness are:

(1) ammonium aluminum alum, (2) aluminum sulfate anhydrous, (3) aluminum sulfate.1.8 H₂0, (4) magnesium chloride_anhydrous, (5) magnesium sulfate_anhydrous, (6) magnesium sulfate.7 H₂0, (7) calcium chloride_anhydrous, (8) manganese chloride, (9) manganese chloride.4 H₂0, (10) Sodium iron alum, (11) Zinc sulfate, (12) Zinc sulfat.7H20

It should be noted that any polyvalent cation salt that is sufficiently soluble in water in the range of near freezing to near boiling, and will carry out a double replacement reaction may be used in this invention to reduce hydroxide alkalinity in water, slurry and sludges with sufficient water to dissolve the salt following adequate mixing. Three balanced chemical equation examples of the caustic alkalinity removal chemistry by the double replacement reaction are found in the Chemical and Mathematical Formulae Presentations on page 11; Formula 1, 2, 3. The addition of these salts causes water to separate from slurries and sludges. Note: The water solubility of the precipitated solids is indicated at each chemical formula demonstrated.

A method of determining the effectiveness of each polyvalent cation in reducing different alkalinity concentrations, is to use a set of factorial experiments. These were established and carried out. A statistical factorial experiment is one conducted to investigate the effect of two or more variable (factors) on the mean value of a response variable. Some of the key factorial and regression effectiveness studies performed in developing this patent application were:

(1) A four factor statistical analysis that involved the study of Calcium (Ca⁺²), Magnesium (Mg⁺²), Aluminum (Al⁺³), and Alkalinity Index (Aidx) was carried out using a ˜1.05 specific gravity alumina red mud by product of 13 pH as well as a ˜15% slurry of clay contaminated with fine iron filings and sodium and potassium hydroxide. The pH was also 13. The response variable was change in pH at 30, 60, 90 minutes and 24 hours. All salt was added in the dry form. See page 12 for an Example of a Factorial Statistical Design used in the development of this technology. The resultant regression equation for the pH response at 30 minutes of mixing is shown on page 13 and is:

(a) 6.74-5.27(Mg+2)−1.527(Ca+2)−7.55(Al+3)+0.104(Aidx)+8.28(Ca+.Mg+2)−the equation Coefficient of Determination (R²)=0.91; F-Ratio of 41.3 for model at a >99% confidence level.

(b) See page 14 for this model except it's expressed in pounds of the actual chemical molecules used per ton of waste treated. Page 15 shows this regression equation (in pounds) for the pH of the treated waste at 30 minutes.

(c) The cation values shown in the test model on page 12 are the total grams of each target active metal in each experiment. To convert the metal grams into the grams of actual salts used you must do the following mathematical conversions:

Mg+2 came from magnesium sulfate.7H20. Mg+2 is 9.85% by weight of this molecule. Divide 0.30/0.0985=3 grams. Ca+2 came from Calcium Chloride. Ca+2 is 36% by weight of this molecule. Divide 0.54/0.36=1.5 grams. Al+3 came from ammonium aluminum sulfate.18H20. Al+3 is 11.9% by weight of this molecule. Divide 0.36/0.119=3.0 grams. Each value is converted in this manner.

(c) Note, that each experiment was based on 125 grams of raw Aidx 31 to 44 waste/by-products. Use this as a basis to calculate how many pounds of salt per ton of waste would be required.

(d) The waste/by-product Aidx factor (Alkalinity Index factor value) shown in the study designs referenced above was determined in the following fashion:

Because high alkalinity/high pH wastes can contain complex buffering solids such as in the case of the alumina red mud, a direct acid neutralization method was chosen to determine an alkalinity index that could be used in the factorial design test scheme. Both waste materials in this study were titrated with a 1 normal (1 N) solution of hydrochloric acid from the raw pH of ˜13 to 6.0 pH. A curve and an equation describing each of the two curves was generated. Next, each curve was integrated from pH 6 to 13. The resulting y/dx area value was used as the Aidx. In the case of red mud this integration value was 44 and the lower alkalinity waste, which was less complex, had an Aidx integration value of 31. These Aidx values allowed the generation of a regression response equation that included not only the impact of each polyvalent cation in various salts but how these impacts would change as the strength of an alkaline waste varied. Graphs of these HCl/Waste neutralization curves with their representative regression equations and integral areas under each curve between pHs 6-13 are included with this Disclosure of Invention can be found shown on page on page 10.

(2) A three factor statistical analysis was run that involved the study of Calcium (Ce⁺²), Magnesium (Mg⁺²) and temperature (F°) of the waste/salt mix. The response variable was change in pH at 15, 30, 60, 90 minutes and 24 hours. All salt was added in the dry form. Each test sample comprised 125 grams of raw Aidx 44 waste/by-product. This study design is shown on page 16.

(a) The regression equation the describing the relationship of the independent variables and the dependent variable waste pH at 30 minutes of mixing can be found on page 17. The factorial design table is on page Y. This study used the gross salt weight and not just the active element weight.

(i) The regression equation is: pH @ 30 min. treatment=14.18-0.657(Mg_ES)−0.545(CaC12)−0.0037(Mixture temp, F°); the R² value for the equation is 0.95 and the model F-ratio if 59.1 at >99% confidence. The Mg_ES ingredient is magnesium sulfate.7H20, the CaCl₂anhy is industrial grade, CaCl_(2,) the anhydrous form, and the Temp F° represents the temperature of the raw waste treated.

(3) A four factor statistical analysis that involved the study of Calcium (Ca⁺²) in two forms [calcium chloride and calcium sulfate.2H₂0], Magnesium (Mg⁺²), and Sodium Chloride (Na⁺), the later to determine if it interfered with the neutralization reactions of the calcium and magnesium. The calcium sulfate, which fails the solubility criteria, was examined to see if there was any positive or negative impact on pH reduction. The response variable was change in pH at 5, 10, 15, 20, and 30 minutes plus 24 hours. All salt was added in the dry form. The test model is shown on page 18.

(a) The regression equation that describes the mean pH value of all measurements from 5 through 60 minutes as impacted by the salts is shown on page 19. The factorial design for this work used the total weight of each salt, and not the key element's (Ca+2, Mg+2, Na+1) weight. Each test sample comprised 250 grams of an Aidx 44 waste/by-product.

(b) See page 20 for the mean pH values for each test from the model shown on page 18. Also, find on page 20 the standard deviation in the pH values over the 60 minute test period as well as the difference between the mean 60 minute pH value and the pH after 24 hours.

(c) This study was carried out to determine the impact of a single valent salt, NaCl, on a mix of active salts (CaCl₂, MgSO₄.7H20) and to determine if the essentially insoluble CaSO₄.2H20 (gypsum) would positively impact the reduction of alkalinity/pH in the treated waste.

(d) The regression equation explaining the impact of these independent variables on the standard deviation of the pH value of measurements at 5 minute intervals from 5 minutes to 60 minutes is:

2.36+0.97.(NaCl)+1.76.CaCl2+4.7.CaSO4.2H20−0.73.MgSO4.H2O−8.5.NaCl.CaSO4.2H20; the R² value for the model is 0.95 with a F Ratio of 2632 at a confidence of 94%: see page 21.

(e) On page 22 is the regression equation that describes the impact on the difference in mean pH for each test protocol over 60 minutes and at 24 hours

(f) On page 23 is the regression equation that describes the impact on salinity differences, measured in parts per million, on the treated sample decant water after 24 hours of standing. The untreated test sample material (about a 40 Aidx red mud) had a free mud separated water salinity of 14,600 ppm.

(4) A two factor statistical analysis that involved the study of Mg⁺² and Al⁺³ with the response variable being the waste pH at 30 minutes. An example factorial test model for this pair of elements is shown on page 24.

(a) The regression equation and detail that describes these relationships is found on page 25. The weight of each element ion grams is used in this study and each test sample was comprised of 125 grams of an Aidx 44 waste/by-product.

(b) pH @ 30 minute mixing=12.88-11.59.(Al+3)−7.39.(Mg+2)+13.8(Al+3.Mg+2); R² for this equation is 0.99 with a F value for the model of 243 at >99% confidence.

(5) A single variable study was carried out on the elements Ca⁺², Mg⁺² and Al⁺³ individually to check their impact on the pH of an Aidx 44 alumina by-product red mud 17-20% solids slurry. The regression equations below are expressed in terms of the gram mass of the elements Al+3, Ca+2, Mg+2 and their pH impacts.

(a) Each regression equation that describes each elements impact on the pH is found on pages 26 and 27. Each raw test sample was 125 grams prior to treatment additions.

(b) pH of Al+3 treated 44 Aidx Red Mud=10.82-3.48*(Al+3)+0.389.(Al+3)²−0.0146.(Al+3)³; R² for this equation is 0.99 with a standard error of 0.016 grams/Al+3 ${{(c)\quad{pH}\quad{of}\quad{Mg}} + {2\quad{treated}\quad 44\quad{Aidx}\quad{Red}\quad{Mud}}} = {{- 2.98} + {0.138*\left( {{Mg} + 2} \right)} + \frac{202.16}{\left( {{Mg} + 2} \right)^{2}}}$

R² for this equation is 0.99 with a standard error of 0.01 grams/Mg+2 ${{(d)\quad{pH}\quad{of}\quad{Ca}} + {2\quad{treated}\quad 44\quad{Aidx}\quad{Red}\quad{Mud}}} = \frac{\left( {61.3 - {4.32*{Ca}} + 2} \right)}{\left( {1 - {26.3*{Ca}} + 2 + {2.56*{Ca}} + 2} \right)}$

The R² value equaled 0.97, the standard error is 0.17 grams/Ca+2.

Purpose of the Neutralization of Waste or By-Products:

Highly alkaline wastes and by-products, due to hydroxide concentrations, are often deemed dangerous or hazardous materials due to a high pH (typically >12) and must be rendered to a lower pH. It is desirous to minimize any volume or mass increase in this endeavor. Typical neutralization approaches fail to minimize waste mass increases.

If an alkaline waste is at a pH that is not deemed hazardous by local agencies, a lower pH is often desirable so that the alkaline material is more suitable for waste storage or for possible beneficial re-use.

(A) An example of a large volume alkaline waste located at many places around the world from sites in East and West Europe, Africa, East and West Asia, Latin America, and North America is a highly alkaline spent bauxite residual from the Bayer process utilized by the alumina/aluminum industry. This alumina production process by-product is generically called “red-mud”. “Red-Mud” usually has a pH of over 13 when freshly produced due to the presence of residual sodium hydroxide. “Red-Mud” material is typically over 12 pH after aging in the drying lagoons or impoundments found at the alumina plant sites around the world. There have been approximately 6-7 million metric tons of “red-mud” generated in the period 1990 through the second quarter 2003 (based on 1 ton red-mud per ton of bauxite processed). The use of this invention's poly cation salt neutralization technology would make the “red-mud” amenable for safer long term storage and render it to a form that would make it suitable for study in the application of many possible recycle uses such a waste water filtration material, land amendments and restoration, and other waste treatments, all which would have economic as well as environmental benefit. Further, this invention's poly cation neutralization treatment significantly minimizes an increase in mass and/or volume of the “red-mud” by-product.

(B) A second example of a lower worldwide volume, highly alkaline, due to potassium hydroxide, waste material is found in the “alkaline battery” industry. The neutralization of this waste material with this poly cationic invention renders the alkaline battery waste non hazardous due to alkalinity while minimizing waste volume and mass and rendering it suitable for additional processing.

Y=ml 1N HCL/gm of waste X=pH of Waste #2 caustic slurry $Y = \frac{12.25 - {0.95\quad X}}{1 + {0.0798\quad X} - {0.0118{X\hat{}2}}}$

Standard Error=0.66 pH units regression coefficient (r)=0.987

Integral of pH range 6-13=1(ydx)=31 area

Three examples of the caustic alkalinity removal chemistry by the double replacement reaction are found just below:

0.296 0.54 0.119 31 0.16 8.5 0.197 0.36 0.238 37.5 0.071 8.3 0.099 0.18 0.12 44 0.0178 9.9 0.296 0.18 0.12 44 0.0533 8.55 0.099 0.54 0.12 44 0.054 9.5 0.099 0.54 0.357 31 0.054 6 0.197 0.36 0.238 37.5 0.071 8.2 0.099 0.18 0.357 44 0.0178 8.2 0.296 0.18 0.357 31 0.053 5.8 0.296 0.54 0.357 44 0.16 7.5 0.246 0.001 0.179 44 0.001 8.8 0.246 0.18 0.179 44 0.0443 8.7 0.296 0.36 0.001 44 0.001 9.6 0.247 0.36 0.119 37.5 0.0889 8.6 0.296 0.36 0.119 44 0.107 8.55 0.296 0.18 0.119 44 0.053 8.6 0.296 0.18 0.36 44 0.053 7.5 0.296 0.54 0.36 44 0.16 7.7 0.099 0.54 0.36 31 0.053 6 0.099 0.54 0.12 31 0.053 8.1 0.099 0.54 0.119 44 0.053 9.5 0.099 0.54 0.119 44 0.053 9.6 Mg + 2 Ca + 2 Al + 3 Aidx Mg * Ca pH(30 min) X1 X2 X3 X4 X1 * X2 Y

Multiple Regression Report Page 1 Database C:\NCSS60JR\DATA\MGCAALR2.S0 Time/Date 11:41:52 11-04-2003 Dependent pH(30 min) response = Y, element analysis in grams Regression Equation Section Independent Regression Standard T-Value Prob Decision Power Variable Coefficient Error (Ho: B = 0) Level (5%) (5%) Intercept 6.741584 0.8652696 7.7913 0.000001 Reject Ho 1.0000 Mg −5.272284 1.450637 −3.6345 0.002231 Reject Ho 0.9263 Ca −1.522303 0.8352348 −1.8226 0.087105 Accept Ho 0.4027 Al −7.550253 0.7624828 −9.9022 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.0000 Alkalinity Idx 0.1041732 1.552946E−02 6.7081 0.000005 Reject Ho 0.9999 Mg * Ca 8.27896 3.304713 2.5052 0.023428 Reject Ho 0.6528 R-Squared 0.928028 Regression Coefficient Section Independent Regression Standard Lower Upper Standardized Variable Coefficient Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L. Coefficient Intercept 6.741584 0.8652696 4.907294 8.575873 0.0000 Mg −5.272284 1.450637 −8.347496 −2.197071 −0.4096 Ca −1.522303 0.8352348 −3.292922 0.2483156 −0.2312 Al −7.550253 0.7624828 −9.166644 −5.933862 −0.7580 Alkalinity Idx 0.1041732 1.552946E−02 7.125223E−02 0.1370942 0.5002 Mg * Ca 8.27896 3.304713 1.273282 15.28464 0.3276 T-Critical 2.119905 Analysis of Variance Section Sum of Mean Prob Power Source DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level (5%) Intercept  1 1500.677 1500.677 Model  5 26.04807 5.209614 41.2620 0.000000 0.994345 Error 16 2.020112 0.126257 Total(Adjusted) 21 28.06818 1.33658 Root Mean Square Error 0.3553266 R-Squared 0.9280 Mean of Dependent 8.259091 Adj R-Squared 0.9055 Coefficient of Variation 4.302248E−02 Press Value 5.700381 Sum|Press Residuals| 8.140982 Press R-Squared 0.7969

48 24 16 31 1152 8.5 32 16 32 37.5 512 8.3 16 8 16 44 128 9.9 48 8 16 44 384 8.55 16 24 16 44 384 9.5 16 24 48 31 384 6 16 16 32 37.5 256 8.2 16 8 48 44 128 8.2 48 8 48 31 384 5.8 48 24 48 44 1152 7.5 40 0.001 24 44 0.001 8.8 40 8 24 44 320 8.7 48 16 0.001 44 0.001 9.6 40 16 16 37.5 640 8.6 48 8 16 44 384 8.55 48 8 16 44 384 8.6 48 24 48 44 1152 7.5 48 24 48 44 1152 7.7 16 24 48 31 384 6 16 24 16 31 384 8.1 16 24 16 44 384 9.5 16 24 16 44 384 9.6 Mg + 2 Ca + 2 Al + 3 Aidx Mg * Ca pH(30 min) X1 X2 X3 X4 X1 * X2 Y

Multiple Regression Report Page 1 Database C:\NCSS60JR\DATA\MGCAAL4T.S0 Time/Date 18:58:24 10-29-2003 Dependent pH(30 min) = Y Pounds of MgSO4*7H20, CaCl2_anhy, Ammonium Alum per ton waste Regression Equation Section Independent Regression Standard T-Value Prob Decision Power Variable Coefficient Error (Ho: B = 0) Level (5%) (5%) Intercept 6.902774 0.74432    9.2739 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 Mg −3.603484E−02 7.921394E−03  −4.5491 0.000329 Reject Ho 0.989337 Ca −3.648528E−02 1.645241E−02  −2.2176 0.041405 Reject Ho 0.549233 Al −6.017634E−02 5.367156E−03 −11.2120 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 Alkalinity Idx 0.1035826 1.349576E−02    7.6752 0.000001 Reject Ho 1.000000 Mg * Ca 1.368777E−03 4.189366E−04    3.2673 0.004842 Reject Ho 0.865627 R-Squared 0.944003 Regression Coefficient Section Independent Regression Standard Lower Upper Standardized Variable Coefficient Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L. Coefficient Intercept 6.902774 0.74432 5.324886 8.480661 0.0000 Mg −3.603484E−02 7.921394E−03 −5.282744E−02 −1.924223E−02 −0.4699 Ca −3.648528E−02 1.645241E−02 7.136285E−02 −1.607724E−03 −0.2522 Al −6.017634E−02 5.367156E−03 −0.0715542 −4.879848E−02 −0.8100 Alkalinity Idx 0.1035826 1.349576E−02 7.497291E−02 0.1321924 0.4974 Mg * Ca 1.368777E−03 4.189366E−04 4.806712E−04 2.256883E−03 0.4252 T-Critical 2.119905 Analysis of Variance Section Sum of Mean Prob Power Source DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level (5%) Intercept 1 1500.677 1500.677 Model 5 26.49646 5.299292 53.9463 0.000000 0.999425 Error 16 1.571723 9.823267E−02 Total(Adjusted) 21 28.06818 1.33658 Root Mean Square Error 0.3134209 R-Squared 0.9440 Mean of Dependent 8.259091 Adj R-Squared 0.9265 Coefficient of Variation 0.0379486 Press Value 5.720131 Sum|Press Residuals| 7.59758 Press R-Squared 0.7962

A Epsom CaCl2_Anh pH15 30-250 g sm

pH45 pH60 gms gms C. Temp F. su su su su Std Dsn Id Run Block Factor Factor Factor Response Response Response Response 7 7 1 1 1.50 2.00 110.00 11.55 6 6 2 1 5.50 0.80 110.00 9.60 10 0 3 1 3.50 1.40 85.00 10.80 5 5 4 1 1.50 0.80 110.00 12.68 8 8 5 1 5.50 2.00 60.00 9.50 9 0 6 1 3.50 1.40 85.00 10.70 4 4 7 1 5.50 2.00 60.00 9.50 2 2 8 1 5.50 0.80 60.00 9.60 1 1 9 1 1.50 0.80 60.00 12.70 3 3 10 1 1.50 2.00 60.00 11.60

Mg(Epsom Salt), CaCl2-Anhy, Temp F. 250 gram red mud sample treated Multiple Regression Report Page 1 Database C:\NCSS60JR\DATA\MGCAAL5F.S0 Time/Date 19:26:45 10-29-2003 Dependent pH(30 min) = Y; 250 Gram Samples of Aidx 44 Red Mud; Treatment Equation based on Total Chemical Additions (not on element weights) Regression Equation Section Independent Regression Standard T-Value Prob Decision Power Variable Coefficient Error (Ho: B = 0) Level (5%) (5%) Intercept 14.1841 0.5545943   25.5756 0.000000 Reject Ho 1.000000 Mg_ES −0.6572538 5.173846E−02 −12.7034 0.000015 Reject Ho 1.000000 CaCl2_anhy −0.5450127 0.1724615  −3.1602 0.019560 Reject Ho 0.749860 Temp F. −3.721212E−03 4.393587E−03  −0.8470 0.429497 Accept Ho 0.111025 R-Squared 0.967302 Regression Coefficient Section Independent Regression Standard Lower Upper Standardized Variable Coefficient Error 95% C.L. 95% C.L. Coefficient Intercept 14.1841 0.5545943 12.82706 15.54115 0.0000 Mg_ES −0.6572538 5.173846E−02 −0.7838532 −0.5306544 −0.9727 CaCl2_anhy −0.5450127 0.1724615 −0.9670108 −0.1230145 −0.2420 Temp F. −3.721212E−03 4.393587E−03 −1.447193E−02 7.02951E−03 −0.0671 T-Critical 2.446912 Analysis of Variance Section Sum of Mean Prob Power Source DF Squares Square F-Ratio Level (5%) Intercept 1 1171.373 1171.373 Model 3 14.13385 4.711282 59.1666 0.000076 0.997085 Error 6 0.4777644 0.0796274 Total(Adjusted) 9 14.61161 1.623512 Root Mean Square Error 0.2821833 R-Squared 0.9673 Mean of Dependent 10.823 Adj R-Squared 0.9510 Coefficient of Variation 2.607256E−02 Press Value 1.578493 Sum|Press Residuals| 3.573037 Press R-Squared 0.8920

Oct. 31, 2003 Red Mud Neutralization Tests (addition in grams) RM NaCl CaCl2 Gypsum Epsom pH/5 pH/10 pH/15 pH/20 pH/30 pH/60 pH/24 h 256.88 .2 1 .2 2 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.1 12.14 12.18 11.2 256.88 .2 3 .8 2 11.13 10.9 10.92 10.92 11.0 11.06 10.47 256.88 .8 1 .2 6 9.62 9.61 9.61 9.62 9.62 9.62 9.4 250 .2 3 .2 6 9.24 9.24 9.17 9.17 9.17 9.14 9.3 250 .8 1 .8 2 10.93 10.9 10.87 10.87 10.86 10.86 10.92 250 .5 2 .5 4 10.04 10.04 10.05 10.06 10.06 10.09 10.18 250 .8 3 .8 6 9.3 9.3 9.31 9.3 9.25 9.28 9.44 250 .2 1 .8 6 9.23 9.21 9.22 9.2 9.19 9.18 9.29 250 .8 3 .2 2 10.57 10.43 10.43 10.51 10.51 10.56 10.74 250 2 6 9.3 9.3 9.28 9.28 9.26 9.3 9.47 Notes: At random choose Test#1, Test#4, Test#8, Test#10 to re-test pH of the 5 min, 15 min, and 30 min samples of each test I hour later, and found no significant change in pH from the from the first 5 minutes, which proves the chemical reaction is immediate with good mixing. The pH of the untreated Red Mud was a pH 12.55 and tests were conducted at room temperature. The temperature of the red mud was 65.9 F. Salinity will be checked on any free water and on settled red mud on all samples when calibration solution for salinity meter arrives. Will also check pH. [Kaiser Red Mud with SG of ˜1.025 compared to PNB shipped buckets at ˜1.05; all test samples were 250 grams of Red Mud plus chemical additions.f]

Analysis of Mean pH 60 mn total@ 5 minute Intervals —Treated Bauxite Red Mud SUM OF MEAN F SOURCE SQUARES DF SQUARE VALUE PROB > F MODEL 7.64345 5 1.52869 9.32 0.0997 CURVATURE 0.01027 1 0.01027 0.06 0.8258 RESIDUAL 0.32810 2 0.16405 COR TOTAL 7.98182 8 ROOT MSE 0.40503 R-SQUARED 0.96 DEP MEAN 10.15556 ADJ R-SQUARED 0.86 C.V. % 3.98827 Case(s) with leverage of 1.0000: PRESS statistic not defined. COEFFICIENT STANDARD t FOR H0 FACTOR ESTIMATE DF ERROR COEFFICIENT = 0 PROB > |t| INTERCEPT 10.167500 1 0.143200 A −0.207500 1 0.143200 −1.45 0.2843 B −0.287500 1 0.143200 −2.01 0.1825 C −0.077500 1 0.143200 −0.54 0.6426 D −0.842500 1 0.143200 −5.88 0.0277 AD 0.337500 1 0.143200 2.36 0.1425 CENTER POINT −0.107500 1 0.429600 −0.25 0.8258 Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors Mean pH 60 mn = 10.16750 − 0.20750 * A − 0.28750 * B − 0.07750 * C − 0.84250 * D + 0.33750 * A * D Final Equation in Terms of Uncoded Factors Mean pH 60 mn = 14.02750 − 2.94167 * NaCl − 0.28750 * CaCl2 − 0.25833 * Gypsum − 0.70250 * Epsom Salt + 0.56250 * NaCl * Epsom Salt OBS ACTUAL PREDICTED STUDENT COOK'S OUTLIER RUN ORD VALUE VALUE RESIDUAL LEVER RESID DIST T VALUE ORD 1 12.12 11.92 0.200 0.750 0.988 0.418 0.976 6 2 9.62 9.82 −0.200 0.750 −0.988 0.418 −0.976 3 3 9.19 8.99 0.205 0.750 1.012 0.439 1.025 8 4 10.05 10.26 −0.205 0.750 −1.012 0.439 −1.025 2 5 9.20 9.41 −0.205 0.750 −1.012 0.439 −1.025 9 6 10.88 10.68 0.205 0.750 1.012 0.439 1.025 5 7 10.99 11.19 −0.200 0.750 −0.988 0.418 −0.976 7 8 9.29 9.09 0.200 0.750 0.988 0.418 0.976 4 9 10.06 10.06 −0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1

12.12 0.033 −0.92 10.99 0.092 −0.52 9.62 0.0052 −0.22 9.19 0.042 0.11 10.88 0.028 0.04 10.06 0.019 0.12 9.29 0.022 0.15 9.2 0.019 0.09 10.5 0.061 0.2 9.9 0.016 0.18 X1 X2 X3 X1 = Mean value of all pH measurements in the NaCl, CaCl2, CaSO4*2H220 and MgSO4*7H20 study starting with 5 minutes at 5 minute intervals to 60 minutes. X2 = Standard deviation of all mean values of X1 X3 = Difference in the pH at 24 hours for each experiment and the 60 summary mean of X1 column.

C:\ncss\norm2.so Analysis of Stnd Dev Summary of pH's at 5 minute intervals to 60 mins. SUM OF MEAN F SOURCE SQUARES DF SQUARE VALUE PROB > F MODEL 54.42300 5 10.8846 26.24 0.0371 CURVATURE 2.76909 1 2.7691 6.68 0.1228 RESIDUAL 0.82960 2 0.4148 COR TOTAL 58.02169 8 ROOT MSE 0.64405 R-SQUARED 0.98 DEP MEAN 3.46889 ADJ R-SQUARED 0.95 C.V. % 18.56645 Case(s) with leverage of 1.0000: PRESS statistic not defined. COEFFICIENT STANDARD t FOR H0 FACTOR ESTIMATE DF ERROR COEFFICIENT = 0 PROB > |t| INTERCEPT 3.665000 1 0.227706 A −0.985000 1 0.227706 −4.33 0.0495 B 1.760000 1 0.227706 7.73 0.0163 C 0.135000 1 0.227706 0.59 0.6134 D −1.460000 1 0.227706 −6.41 0.0235 AC −0.765000 1 0.227706 −3.36 0.0783 CENTER POINT −1.765000 1 0.683118 −2.58 0.1228 Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors Stnd Dev 60 m = 3.66500 − 0.98500 * A + 1.76000 * B + 0.13500 * C − 1.46000 * D − 0.76500 * A * C Final Equation in Terms of Uncoded Factors Stnd Dev 60 m = 2.35667 + 0.96667 * NaCl + 1.76000 * CaCl2 + 4.70000 * Gypsum − 0.73000 * Epsom Salt − 8.50000 * NaCl * Gypsum OBS ACTUAL PREDICTED STUDENT COOK'S OUTLIER RUN ORD VALUE VALUE RESIDUAL LEVER RESID DIST T VALUE ORD 1 3.30 3.45 −0.150 0.750 −0.466 0.093 −0.349 6 2 0.52 0.09 0.430 0.750 1.335 0.764 2.867 3 3 4.20 4.05 0.150 0.750 0.466 0.093 0.349 8 4 6.10 6.53 −0.430 0.750 −1.335 0.764 −2.867 2 5 1.90 2.33 −0.430 0.750 −1.335 0.764 −2.867 9 6 1.90 1.75 0.150 0.750 0.466 0.093 0.349 5 7 9.20 8.77 0.430 0.750 1.335 0.764 2.867 7 8 2.20 2.35 −0.150 0.750 −0.466 0.093 −0.349 4 9 1.90 1.90 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1

Analysis of pH 24 H-60u: Difference in Summary 60 min. mean pH and pH at 24 Hrs. Bauxite red mud test sample, 250 gram raw sample size. SUM OF MEAN F SOURCE SQUARES DF SQUARE VALUE PROB > F MODEL 1.12616 5 0.22523 54.11 0.0182 CURVATURE 0.05500 1 0.05500 13.21 0.0680 RESIDUAL 0.00833 2 0.00416 COR TOTAL 1.18949 8 ROOT MSE 0.06452 R-SQUARED 0.99 DEP MEAN −0.10111 ADJ R-SQUARED 0.97 C.V. % −63.80846 Case(s) with leverage of 1.0000: PRESS statistic not defined. COEFFICIENT STANDARD t FOR H0 FACTOR ESTIMATE DF ERROR COEFFICIENT = 0 PROB > |t| INTERCEPT −0.128750 1 0.022810 A 0.181250 1 0.022810 7.95 0.0155 B 0.123750 1 0.022810 5.43 0.0323 C 0.068750 1 0.022810 3.01 0.0947 D 0.161250 1 0.022810 7.07 0.0194 AD −0.248750 1 0.022810 −10.91 0.0083 CENTER POINT 0.248750 1 0.068431 3.64 0.0680 Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors pH 24 H-60u = −0.12875 + 0.18125 * A + 0.12375 * B + 0.06875 * C + 0.16125 * D − 0.24875 * A * D Final Equation in Terms of Uncoded Factors pH 24 H-60u = −1.94458 + 2.26250 * NaCl + 0.12375 * CaCl2 + 0.22917 * Gypsum + 0.28792 * Epsom Salt − 0.41458 * NaCl * Epsom Salt OBS ACTUAL PREDICTED STUDENT COOK'S OUTLIER RUN ORD VALUE VALUE RESIDUAL LEVER RESID DIST T VALUE ORD 1 −0.92 −0.91 −0.008 0.750 −0.232 0.023 −0.167 6 2 −0.22 −0.23 0.007 0.750 0.232 0.023 0.167 3 3 0.11 0.15 −0.045 0.750 −1.395 0.834 −6.000 8 4 0.24 0.19 0.045 0.750 1.395 0.834 6.000 2 5 0.09 0.04 0.045 0.750 1.395 0.834 6.000 9 6 0.04 0.08 −0.045 0.750 −1.395 0.834 −6.000 5 7 −0.52 −0.53 0.007 0.750 0.232 0.023 0.167 7 8 0.15 0.16 −0.008 0.750 −0.232 0.023 −0.167 4 9 0.12 0.12 0.000 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1

Analysis of Salinity-Decant Water @24 hours of room temperature reaction time NaCl, CaCl2, CaSO4*2H20 and MgSO4*7H20, ppm SUM OF MEAN F SOURCE SQUARES DF SQUARE VALUE PROB > F MODEL 47186250.00 5 9437250.0 33.55 0.0292 CURVATURE 40138.89 1 40138.9 0.14 0.7419 RESIDUAL 562500.00 2 281250.0 COR TOTAL 47788888.89 8 ROOT MSE 530.33 R-SQUARED 0.99 DEP MEAN 14988.89 ADJ R-SQUARED 0.96 C.V. % 3.54 Case(s) with leverage of 1.0000: PRESS statistic not defined. COEFFICIENT STANDARD t FOR H0 FACTOR ESTIMATE DF ERROR COEFFICIENT = 0 PROB > |t| INTERCEPT 15012.5000 1 187.5000 A 1262.5000 1 187.5000 6.73 0.0214 B 1987.5000 1 187.5000 10.60 0.0088 C −162.5000 1 187.5000 −0.87 0.4775 D 462.5000 1 187.5000 2.47 0.1325 AD −337.5000 1 187.5000 −1.80 0.2137 CENTER POINT −212.5000 1 562.5000 −0.38 0.7419 Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors Salinity-Decant = 15012.50 + 1262.50 * A + 1987.50 * B − 162.50 * C + 462.50 * D − 337.50 * A * D Final Equation in Terms of Uncoded Factors Salinity-Decant = 7154.17 + 6458.33 * NaCl + 1987.50 * CaCl2 − 541.67 * Gypsum + 512.50 * Epsom Salt − 562.50 * NaCl * Epsom Salt OBS ACTUAL PREDICTED STUDENT COOK'S OUTLIER RUN ORD VALUE VALUE RESIDUAL LEVER RESID DIST T VALUE ORD 1 1.15E+04 1.11E+04   3.75E+02 0.750 1.414 0.857 0.000 6 2 1.42E+04 1.46E+04 −3.75E+02 0.750 −1.414 0.857 0.000 3 3 1.67E+04 1.67E+04   1.13E−13 0.750 0.000 0.000 0.000 8 4 1.83E+04 1.83E+04 −1.03E−15 0.750 −0.000 0.000 −0.000 2 5 1.24E+04 1.24E+04 −3.42E−13 0.750 −0.000 0.000 −0.000 9 6 1.40E+04 1.40E+04 −1.03E−15 0.750 −0.000 0.000 −0.000 5 7 1.44E+04 1.48E+04 −3.75E+02 0.750 −1.414 0.857 0.000 7 8 1.86E+04 1.82E+04   3.75E+02 0.750 1.414 0.857 0.000 4 9 1.48E+04 1.48E+04   2.07E−13 1.000 0.000 0.000 0.000 1

Al + 3 gms/ Mg + 2 gms/ pH(30 mn) 125 gms 125 gms su Std Dsn Id Run Block Factor Factor Response 6 3 1 1 0.001 0.394 10.100 3 2 2 1 0.476 0.001 7.500 7 4 3 1 0.476 0.394 7.050 5 3 4 1 0.001 0.394 10.000 4 2 5 1 0.476 0.001 7.400 9 0 6 1 0.238 0.195 8.900 2 1 7 1 0.001 0.001 12.900 10 0 8 1 0.238 0.195 9.000 8 4 9 1 0.476 0.394 7.200 1 1 10 1 0.001 0.001 13.000

Analysis of pH @30 min. mixing - Al + 3 and Mg + 2 Study - 125 gm. Aidx 44 □ Red Mud waste samples□ SUM OF MEAN F SOURCE SQUARES DF SQUARE VALUE PROB > F MODEL 43.99121 3 14.6637 243.69 <0.0001 RESIDUAL 0.36104 6 0.0602 *LACK OF FIT 0.32979 1 0.3298 52.77 0.0008 *PURE ERROR 0.03125 5 0.0062 COR TOTAL 44.35225 9 ROOT MSE 0.24530 R-SQUARED 0.99 DEP MEAN 9.30500 ADJ R-SQUARED 0.99 C.V. % 2.63623 PRED R-SQUARED 0.98 Predicted Residual Sum of Squares (PRESS) = 0.6665 *Residual = Lack-Of-Fit + Pure Error COEFFICIENT STANDARD t FOR H0 FACTOR ESTIMATE DF ERROR COEFFICIENT = 0 PROB > |t| INTERCEPT 9.302951 1 0.077571 A −2.106250 1 0.086727 −24.29 <0.0001 B −0.805095 1 0.086726 −9.28 <0.0001 AB 0.643750 1 0.086727 7.42 0.0003 Final Equation in Terms of Coded Factors pH(30 mn) = 9.30295 − 2.10625 * A − 0.80509 * B + 0.64375 * A * B Final Equation in Terms of Uncoded Factors pH(30 mn) = 12.87701 − 11.59274 * Al + 3 − 7.38705 * Mg + 2 + 13.79403 * Al + 3 * Mg + 2 OBS ACTUAL PREDICTED STUDENT COOK'S OUTLIER RUN ORD VALUE VALUE RESIDUAL LEVER RESID DIST T VALUE ORD 1 13.00 12.86 0.142 0.474 0.798 0.144 0.771 10 2 12.90 12.86 0.042 0.474 0.236 0.013 0.216 7 3 7.50 7.36 0.142 0.474 0.798 0.144 0.771 2 4 7.40 7.36 0.042 0.474 0.236 0.013 0.216 5 5 10.00 9.96 0.040 0.476 0.223 0.011 0.205 4 6 10.10 9.96 0.140 0.476 0.786 0.140 0.758 1 7 7.05 7.04 0.015 0.476 0.082 0.002 0.075 3 8 7.20 7.04 0.165 0.476 0.927 0.195 0.914 9 9 8.90 9.31 −0.413 0.100 −1.776 0.088 −2.353 6 10  9.00 9.31 −0.313 0.100 −1.346 0.050 −1.470 8

BEST MODE FOR CARRYING OUT THE INVENTION

This invention is suitable for application to any liquid, slurry, sludge or solid that may be wetted with water to a sludge with suitable salt dissolving ability to cause the salt, double cation exchange neutralization reaction to proceed. The salt or salt mixture chosen to run this neutralization reaction optimally requires:

(1) A salt with a solubility in 100 grams of water at room temperature of at least 0.5 grams. Poly cation salts such as CaSO4.0.5H20 or CaSO4.2H20 do not meet this requirement, yet each will have a small impact on reducing alkalinity in a waste or by-product, as shown in the invention description.

(2) The use of a thoroughly soluble salt such as ammonium aluminum alum or sodium iron(III) alum or magnesium sulfate heptahydrate or magnesium chloride or calcium chloride are all salts that will (a) thoroughly dissolve in water at temperatures around water's freezing to boiling points to an extent exceeding 15 grams per 100 mls of water and will (b) produce a double substitution reaction hydroxide product such as shown on page 11 that is at least as insoluble in water as Ca(OH)₂ is in cold and hot water.

(3) The di-valent cation calcium is not the best element to use, if to be used alone, since it produces a slightly soluble precipitate in the double replacement reaction which causes the calcium cation to hit a maximum pH reduction limit near pH 10.5. A better mode would be to use the aluminum tri-valent cation from one of its several soluble salts.

(4) The best mode decision for reducing a waste or by-product's hydroxide alkalinity could be controlled by what sort of eventual end use for the neutralized product is envisioned at the time of treatment. An example would be the neutralization of spent bauxite-alumina “red mud” for the eventual purpose of blending it into a useable soil material. In this case, the straight use of the neutralization efficient cation aluminum might be modified to include some magnesium and/ or calcium in the neutralization process in order to make the treated material's agronomic characteristics better. If long term storage was the goal, then the use of aluminum would maximize results and minimize chemical treatment costs. 

1. A method of treating hydroxide alkaline waste and by-products to render the material neutralized or reduced in pH from near 14 to a minimum lower limit of about 5.3 based on aluminum poly cation salts, rendering the waste or by-product stream suitable for ultimate disposal or reuse comprising: (a) contacting together, in a reaction mixture the high alkaline/pH waste or by-product material, with sufficient water added or found within the alkaline material, with one or more poly cationic salts in the dry form taken from a group of salts containing tri-valent aluminum, tri-valent iron, di-valent calcium, di-valent zinc, di-valent magnesium, di-valent manganese or any polyvalent cationic salt that is soluble in water to a minimum extent of 0.5 grams per 100 milliliters of water at near 0° Centigrade and 2 grams per 100 milliliters of water at near 100° Centigrade, in such a way to cause these materials to react to form a soluble salt reaction by-product and an insoluble hydroxide precipitate with water solubility characteristics, between 0° Centigrade and 100° Centigrade, equal to or exceeding that of CaSO4.2H₂O (gypsum) or approximately 0.20 grams per 100 milliliters; (c) the level of pH reduction chosen and selection of the neutralizing cation or cations and the salt(s) in which they appear will control the percentage of each and total salt added to the individual waste/by-product reaction mixture; (d) allowing control of the chemical costs and the type and quantity of added metal content in the alkalinity/pH reduced material; the salt(s) which, (e) may be dry or made up of a brine or dilute salt solution of the chosen salt or salts from the set of described poly cation salts suitable to reduce hydroxide alkalinity in waste and by-product materials causing the pH to drop immediately upon thorough mixing of the poly cation salts and the waste/product materials; immediate is termed from instantly upon complete dissolution of the poly cation salt(s), to within a few minutes, less than 30, if the mixing process is difficult; (f) the temperature of the waste or by-product does not change the time of reaction meaningfully and in turn the pH level of the treated waste/by-product within 15 minutes of treatment; a process temperature of 60° C. versus a process temperature of 5° C. will show that the difference in pH within the first 1 to 30 minutes will be less than 0.5 pH units lower at the higher temperature for most wastes; and, more commonly less than 0.35 pH units.
 2. The process of claim 1, where in the poly cation salt neutralization process requires a determination of the level of alkalinity present in the waste or by-product in order to determine how much active ingredient needs to added in order to achieve the desired waste/by-product pH level; (a) this may be done through the use of the Alkalinity Index (Aidx) of the waste or by-product which is determined by titrating the “to be treated” material with a 1 Normal Hydrochloric Acid, measuring the pH from the raw pH to a pH of 6.0; the curve generated by this titration should be integrated to yield an “area under the curve” of milliliters of 1 Normal HCl per gram of alkaline waste per change in waste pH, as shown on page 10 of the application; this area value becomes the Aidx value; (b) the Aidx value can then be used in a regression equation such as found on page 13 as well as in the generation of a new factorial test design such as the examples on pages 12, 16 and 24 leading to a process specific regression equation which will allow the optimization of the level of the specific poly cations chosen to treat the waste or by-product. 